On Harriet Meirs
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Supreme CourtWell, it’s been a few days since Bush nominated the woman who would be the next Supreme Court Justice, and the reactions are certainly mixed, but in a very odd way. Her experience is certainly suspect as she’s only been president of the Texas bar, a member of the Dallas City Council and the chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. Hardly a stellar resume.
This is probably why the conservatives are crying foul. They think this is a clear case of cronyism and for all intents and purposes, I agree with them.
Why? Well, Meirs has absolutely no judicial experience and her positions on the issues are virtually non-existent. It seems that the only reason she was nominated is that she’s Bush’s general counsel.
Right Wing News rounds up the thoughts on the right, including the Wall Street Journal’s:
“Is the President sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the High Court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans? The lesson this nomination in particular will send to younger lawyers is to keep your opinions to yourself, don’t join the Federalist Society, and, heaven forbid, never write an op-ed piece. This isn’t healthy in a democracy, and in this sense a Supreme Court fight over legal philosophy that ended in a conservative victory would have demonstrated to the left that Borking no longer works.We will no doubt learn more about Ms. Miers in the coming weeks, and perhaps any doubts will prove groundless. But for now, Mr. Bush is asking his supporters to accept his judgment about his personal lawyer as an act of faith.”
Meanwhile, the liberal blogosphere seems to think Meirs is a good candidate because Harry Reid likes her.
I personally think that I would like to see someone who has not had judicial experience. I think that we need somebody to go on that Court in the mold of the people on the Berger court, people who have not spent their lifetime holed up in some office writing opinions and reading briefs. One of the people that’s being talked about is Harriet Miers, his own lawyer. At the meeting we had with the president last week, we were in the office he has there; I was there, Frist was there, Leahy was there, and Specter was there, plus Andy Card and the vice president. I said, “The vice president got here in a very unusual way. He was chosen by you to find a candidate to be your vice president. You liked the person in charge of finding a candidate better than the people he chose.â€Â? I said, “I think that rather than rather than looking at the people your lawyer’s recommending, pick her.â€Â? …
Reid wants to see someone without judicial experience because Bush picked Cheney in a similar fashion? Please, explain that one to me…
Listen, does any of this mean she’ll be a bad justice? No.
But does she seem qualified to sit on the highest court in the land? Absolutely not. The fact that she doesn’t have any judicial experience is pretty troubling, and I’d like to see somebody who has at least spent some years on the bench represent the nation’s views.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 5th, 2005 and is filed under Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 5th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
If I’m not mistaken, I heard that there have been 7 previous justices that also had no judicial experience. If that is true, then this isn’t that far out of the relm and she could be qualified.
While I’m not to enthusiastic about here because I don’t know what type of judge she will be, I can’t be presumpious enough to say that she isn’t qualified for the position. She obviously meets the qualification or Bush wouldn’t have selected her. Then the issue is that she isn’t the most qualified in our opinion, but it isn’t our opinion that counts, it is Bush’s opinion. He is the one that the consitution gives the right to select the SCOTUS nominee.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
What qualification? That Bush likes her opinions?
This is what I want to know. The fact that her qualifications aren’t obvious (like John Roberts) makes this pick suspect.
And actually, yes, our opinions do matter. Because if we don’t like her, we can call up our representatives in Congress and tell them as much. Sure, it’s not up to us to PICK her, but we can have an effect on whether or not she gets the position.
October 24th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
State of U.S. Courts. . .
Consider this:
Open Letter
October 23, 2005
United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544
Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219
United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)
Dear All:
Please be advise of the following criminal activity.
On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.
In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.
At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.�
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding� I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.
The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.� Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.�
Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal� to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).
Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.
In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).
I demand an immediate investigation.
Respectfully,
(Name Removed)